I think the idea here is that prosecutors could feasibly prove, by testimony or medical expert evidence, that the victim was blackout drunk (i.e., "incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.") In…

Yeah, I am unclear on this as well. The article says something like, "this takes the onus off victims to prove their own rapes," suggesting we're not just talking about a different standard of consent but a different burden of proof. So, does the school/state need only prove that sex occurred, and the burden shifts…

I can't tell if you're a parody account but, either way, bravo.

privacy is an anachronism

I am not an expert on IUDs or Plan B. All I know is that, for the purposes of this case, the govt never contested that both methods can prevent implantation. So, if the fact is conceded by the other side it's treated as true, and frankly I'd assume that if it were a complete misconception the govt would have said…

This claim is not part of their dogma nor is it in any of their religious texts, it is a claim they simply made up recently.

A lie is an intentional misstatement of fact. Religious beliefs don't necessarily assert "fact," and a sincere assertion of any belief is never intentionally false.

Except that religious beliefs — at least as treated in constitutional jurisprudence — don't purport to be experimentally-verifiable (or -falsifiable) statements of fact about the physical world. They're things that people believe irrespective of whether supporting (or even contradictory) evidence exists. Is …

Would I want it done to me? Not necessarily, though I would probably be more amused than affronted. However: If I were offered the chance to make hundreds of millions of dollars as an entertainment celebrity, I would accept readily, even knowing that legions of sickos would inevitably have sick sexual fantasies…

It would be different if the storiesinvaded the celebrities' privacy (depicted things they'd actually done, which were previously unknown to the world) or if the stories were defamatory, but...pure off-the-wall fantasy? I could write and post here, for thousands to read, that bloodsweatcheers enjoys sex with…

Eh — public figures? If you set out to be a rockstar or movie star, you basically sign up for the whole people-having-grotesque-fantasies-about-you deal. And the people spending their time writing this (young girls on tumblr most likely) are not spending time sending you blood-drenched love letters or lurking in the…

Why are we reading this? Why do I want to know this? Can you post more HamNo anticapitalist screeds instead? Anything. Pls.

It's entirely possible this outcome was intentional.

what fallacy are you talking about? lies are misstatements of fact, hth.

It's a good argument, and I admit I didn't read the dissent (or even the decision, really — I skimmed parts). But: the belief they took before the court was that these methods prevent implantation, which in their religious view is impermissibly abortifacient...right? Does the disagreement simply arise over whether a…

HL believes that emergency contraception prevents implantation specifically, and their religion categorizes this as an impermissible extinguishing of new/potential life.

Sure — but why? Because it's empirically unfounded (as are most religious beliefs)? Or because you don't have the right to force your religion on others, period?

Yeah, I do see the distinction, but I'm not sure how consequential it is in the long run. They could just rephrase and state, "we believe Plan B and IUDs are evil," and so long as the belief is sincere we end up in the same place. Or, they could simply argue that there exists a mere statistical chance, however…

Free Exercise is religion, not speech. And if your anti-Lipitor beliefs are sincerely part of your religion (a prong the court must weigh), then your religious objection to consuming Lipitor should be upheld. Religious beliefs aren't empirically testable as true/false, and therefore cannot be called "lies."

Look, I disagree w/the ruling in Hobby Lobby, but this specific critique: